Unlocking the Newsroom: Measuring Journalists' Perceptions of Innovative Learning Culture

(1)

University of Groningen

Unlocking the Newsroom

Porcu, Ornella; Hermans, Liesbeth; Broersma, Marcel

Published in:

Journalism Studies DOI:

10.1080/1461670X.2020.1758956

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Version created as part of publication process; publisher's layout; not normally made publicly available

Publication date: 2020

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Porcu, O., Hermans, L., & Broersma, M. (2020). Unlocking the Newsroom: Measuring Journalists' Perceptions of Innovative Learning Culture. Journalism Studies, 21(10), 1420-1438.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1758956

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

(2)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjos20

Journalism Studies

ISSN: 1461-670X (Print) 1469-9699 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjos20

Unlocking the Newsroom: Measuring Journalists’

Perceptions of Innovative Learning Culture

Ornella Porcu, Liesbeth Hermans & Marcel Broersma

To cite this article: Ornella Porcu, Liesbeth Hermans & Marcel Broersma (2020): Unlocking the Newsroom: Measuring Journalists’ Perceptions of Innovative Learning Culture, Journalism Studies, DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2020.1758956

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1758956

Published online: 13 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 684

View related articles

(3)

Unlocking the Newsroom: Measuring Journalists’ Perceptions

of Innovative Learning Culture

Ornella Porcu a,b, Liesbeth Hermans a,cand Marcel Broersma b

a

Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Media Research Center, Zwolle, Netherlands;bCentre for Media and Journalism Studies, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands;cCommunication Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands

ABSTRACT

Thorough understanding of how “outside the box” ideas in the newsroom can be triggered and fostered is fundamental to grasp innovation in journalism, but is still largely uncharted territory. Comprehension of its key elements would enable news organisations to reinvent themselves and improve chances for survival. In this article we develop an instrument to investigate if and how newsroom workers and management perceive an Innovative Learning Culture (ILC). This survey enables us to locate which aspects of ILC are bottlenecks or foster creativity and innovation processes. First we focus on how the different aspects of ILC are perceived: which aspects are experienced to foster or hinder an overall ILC. In a second step we analyse how respondent characteristics influence perceptions of these processes. In combining these two steps, the survey can be used as a key to“unlock” the newsroom with respect to its creative and innovative potential. We validated the survey in the newsrooms of two Dutch national quality newspapers, each with a different history, culture, audience and size. Findings show that they have similar perceptions of which ILC-aspects typically foster or hinder ILC in their newsrooms. We discuss the outcomes and provide suggestions for future research.

KEYWORDS

Innovative learning culture; newsroom culture; newspapers; creativity; resilience; newsroom innovation; newsroom transformation; innovation capacity Introduction

News organisations have been adapting to a digital and multi-media news environment since the late twentieth century, and this often has proven to be a struggle (Buijs2014; Ryfe 2012; Tameling 2015; Usher 2014). Legacy media in particular are forced into digital transition by their online competitors, who oﬀer more versatile, more immediate and more user-friendly alternatives to their audiences (Küng2015; Slot2018; Westlund and Lewis2014). Multiple authors have argued that if these established media seek to con-solidate their position and want to remain relevant to their audiences, they should not merely adapt but fundamentally reinvent themselves (Fortunati and O’Sullivan 2019; Küng2015; Westlund and Lewis2014). Such a transformation does not happen overnight

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

CONTACT Ornella Porcu o.porcu@windesheim.nl Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Media Research Center, Campus 2, Zwolle, NL 8017CA, Netherlands

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1758956

(4)

as it depends on the creative, learning and innovation abilities of the news organisation, and hence, on its resilient culture (Seville 2017). A newsroom’s “innovative learning culture”, deﬁned as ILC (Porcu2017), is therefore of key interest to the study of journalism as well as to journalism itself.

The impact of culture on organisational innovation processes has been widely acknowl-edged across industries (Alvesson and Sveningsson 2008; Amabile et al. 1996, 1997; Naranjo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez, and Sanz-Valle 2011; Naranjo-Valencia and Cal-deron-Hernández 2018). Unravelling how new or “outside the box” ideas are fostered within a newsroom culture, is a crucial part of understanding innovation processes in media organisations, but this has hardly been studied yet (Coleman and Colbert 2004; Nylund2013). Nor have the perceptions of new-idea-fostering processes been examined often. With Griswold (2008) and Wallace and Wolf (2006) we assume the fundamental sociological insight that people act according to their perceptions. Consequently, percep-tions of creativity and innovation, rather than “objective” work environments (Kwaś-niewska and Nęcka 2004), can be decisive for the enhancement of innovation. In newsroom studies, however, this has yet to be mapped out.

Despite this research gap, it is fair to say that newsroom culture is a complex and intan-gible matter, and not easily measurable. As a consequence, there are hardly any measure-ment tools to tackle newsroom culture issues with respect to innovation. This is a problem, as not only does this prevent journalism scholars from gaining profound insights into newsroom innovation, it also hinders newsroom management as well as newsroom workers to take measures based on these insights.

The purpose of this article, therefore, is threefold. First, we develop an instrument to empirically measure the perceptions of an innovative learning culture (ILC) in the newsroom (Porcu2017). Second, we validate this instrument within newsrooms, measuring perceptions of the diﬀerent aspects of ILC. Third, we observe patterns in outcomes: which ILC-aspects are typically perceived to contribute to an overall ILC, and which are not. To summarise: the con-tribution of this article is that it presents an empirical instrument to measure ILC in news-rooms. Not only to understand how newsrooms experience innovation processes, but also to locate where, and to learn how, these processes can be improved to enhance a news-room’s resilience, as well as its reinvention and long term survival (Seville2017).

Innovative Learning Culture (ILC)

The social climate in newsrooms that can stimulate“outside the box” thinking has been conceptualised by Porcu (2017) as an innovative learning culture (ILC). This is deﬁned as a learning culture in (parts of) the organisation that triggers and fosters novel and creative ideas to experiment with and to learn from. Exploring new ideas is inherent to an inno-vation process, as the knowledge-creating potential of new ideas yields transformative qualities for the (entire) organisation (Cameron and Quinn 2011; Schenke 2015; Yolles

2009). Following Porcu (2017), ILC is deﬁned as:

a social climate that stimulates people to work and learn together, to grow as an individual and as a group (team, organization), and that provides people with the autonomy needed to beﬂexible, to experiment, to be creative, and to investigate radical possibilities in order for the organization to have better chances for survival in the long run. This is facilitated by

(5)

serving leadership, open communication, mutual trust, a supporting culture, shared goals, appreciation of individual achievement, and training and development. (Porcu2017, 4)

ILC as a conceptfills at least three gaps in the literature on newsroom innovation. First, learning and innovation processes of professional journalists, as opposed to the ones of students, appear to be strikingly under-researched. Literature on the development of people’s talents mainly reflects “skilling”, i.e., learning how to use certain new technologies (Cottle and Ashton1999; Nygren2014; Wallace2013). Second, while learning and inno-vation processes of people are key to the ability of newsrooms to reinvent themselves, newsroom studies tend to focus rather on the diffusion of technological innovation (Bocz-kowski 2004; Chadha and Wells2016; Reich 2013) than on the cultural prerequisites of broader innovation processes. Finally, studies that in fact do have an eye for the cultural aspects of innovation processes often view newsroom culture as a hindrance to change and renewal (Buijs 2014; Ryfe 2012; Tameling 2015; Usher 2014). Furthermore, these studies often perceive innovation processes typically from a management point of view, whereby attention to what“change agents” perceive dominates over what “change reci-pients” experience (Porcu2017). This aligns with the current trend in the burgeoning scho-larship on media management beyond journalism or the news industry (Faustino and Noam2019; Küng2008;2016; Lowe and Brown2016; Picard and Lowe2016; Sylvie and Schmitz Weiss2012) in which there is also a clear emphasis on management results.

Based on the more detailed account of ILC’s underpinnings provided in Porcu (2017), we argue that ILC offers a new lens to look more closely at learning and innovation processes in newsrooms. Moreover, we argue that ILC is a prerequisite for new ideas to emerge, to be shared and developed in the newsroom. Based on the prolific literature on the influence of culture on innovation (see Brimhall and More Barak2018; McLean2005; Naranjo-Valencia and Calderon-Hernández2018; Ness and Riese2015, for more details), it can be argued that the more ILC is experienced in a newsroom, the more likely it is that new ideas will emerge, be talked about and, eventually, be able to blossom and enhance innovation pro-cesses in the newsroom. We also assume the reverse in likelihood is true. It is, therefore, interesting to discover how ILC actually is perceived in the newsroom.

Explorative (Outside the Box) Innovation

The value of ILC lies in the fact that this concept refers to a learning culture that triggers and fosters“explorative innovation” ideas (March1991; O’Reilly and Tushman2013), more popularly described as“outside the box” ideas (see also Porcu2017). According to a range of authors, a culture focussed on experimenting with ideas is exactly the type of learning culture legacy newsrooms need, in order to create their own innovative opportunities instead of merely adapting to, and copying, others (Küng 2015; O’Reilly and Tushman

2004,2013; Seville2017; Westlund and Lewis2014).

Explorative innovation as a term derives from the literature on organisational ambidex-terity that distinguishes explorative innovation from “exploitative innovation” (March

1991; O’Reilly and Tushman2013), the latter informally defined as “inside the box”. At an organisational level ambidexterity literally refers to the ability to use both the right and the left hand equally well. It reflects the abilities of organisations to be, simultaneously, efficient in continuing traditional revenue streams as well as to be creative in coming up with new ideas and seizing opportunities in a fast-changing environment. March (1991, 73)

(6)

concluded long before digital disruption had entered the media landscape that exploita-tive innovation, with its typical lack of experimentation, is“potentially self-destructive” to an organisation. The reason for this threat is that organisations have the tendency to let themselves be overtaken by short term performance, as these bring rapidly visible results. This process then reinforces itself in a way that triggers only more exploitative innovation, leaving hardly any attention or resources for explorative innovation which focusses on the long term. But if organisations seek long term survival, at least both inno-vation types are needed (March1991; O’Reilly and Tushman2013).

However, as occurs with all vested organisations (March 1991; O’Reilly and Tushman

2013), news organisations are not very good at achieving explorative innovation (O’Reilly and Tushman 2004; Storsul and Krumsvik 2013; Tameling 2015; Westlund and Lewis 2014). Day-to-day news production, focussing on short term demand and eﬃcient output, typically absorbs most of people’s creative energies. These newsroom activities can be considered predominantly the domain of exploitative innovation with its small and incremental improvements. Hence, an organisational focus on the short term, with its predominance of traditional ways of working, thinking and doing what always has been done (Küng 2015), appears to prevail in newsrooms (O’Reilly and Tushman2004; Storsul and Krumsvik2013; Tameling2015; Westlund and Lewis2014). Fur-thermore, and in the context of limited resources, any increase of exploitative innovation– for example performing extra tasks to achieve more eﬃciency – also seems to diminish possibilities for explorative innovation (Nylund2013).

Slot (2018, 9) illustrates this prevalence for exploitative innovation with an analysis of how different players in the Dutch journalism landscape perceive collaboration in inno-vation. The authorfinds that legacy media managers are internally oriented and in “survival mode” with a main focus on cost-cutting while trying to maintain revenues, as opposed to managers from media start-ups. The latter are more externally focussed and keen to seek collaboration with other parties. Both types of media managers operate in their immediate, short term interests: start-up media need to establish themselves and try to expand, estab-lished legacy media rather seek to protect what they already have. With respect to legacy media thefinancial pressure “resonates in the way knowledge is shared” and innovative collaboration with other organisations, therefore, is not deemed to be feasible.

Research thus shows that explorative innovation in legacy newsrooms is scarce, and hence, much needed (Fortunati and O’Sullivan 2019; Küng 2015; O’Reilly and Tushman

2004; Storsul and Krumsvik 2013; Tameling 2015; Westlund and Lewis2014). Using ILC as a new lens to analyse how explorative innovation is triggered and fostered, can realise profound insights into how newsrooms can move beyond daily routines and explore their own creativity, building resilience (Seville2017).

Another value of ILC is that it can be seen as a more deﬁned concept than more broadly used terms like“organisational creativity” (McLean2005),“organisational learning culture” (Joo2010) or“innovativeness of the ﬁrm’s culture” (Montes, Ruiz Moreno, and Molina Fer-nández2004). Furthermore, ILC holistically addresses management as well as workers, and the dynamics between them, instead of taking a management point of view, as often happens in studies on newsroom innovation (see for instance Boyles 2016; Heckman and Wihbey2019; Lowrey2011; Sylvie and Gade2009; Slot2018).

ILC can be studied in any type of newsroom. For the purpose of this article, however, we will focus on newspaper newsrooms. Digital disruption has impacted the newspaper

(7)

industry more dramatically than other media sectors (Evans2016; Tameling2015). While newspaper organisations have multiple transformational challenges to meet, they are still considered“at the agenda-setting core of the news chain” (Fortunati and O’Sullivan2019, 143). From a democratic point of view, newspapers still have a crucial function in society. Hence, if they fail to innovate their demise could have serious consequences. Scholars therefore argue that newspaper organisations need to profoundly reinvent themselves. This can also include a new way of looking at the relationship with their audiences or their role in society at large (Borger 2016; Fortunati and O’Sullivan 2019; Pavlik 2013; Swart2018).

Methodology

In order to measure perceptions, beliefs and attitudes about ILC, we have constructed a questionnaire with multiple scales, measuring diﬀerent aspects of ILC (Bryman2008; Cres-well 2014; Taber2018). We have designed an online self-completion survey to reach a large number of respondents in a short period of time at low cost (Bryman 2008). In this paragraph, we address the construction and validation of the survey instrument.

(1) Construction of the survey instrument

The construction of the survey is based on ILC as a concept and is modelled after an existing survey measuring the“professional learning culture” (PLC) of teachers (Oberon, Kohnstamm & Iclon 2014; Schenke et al. 2015). The PLC-survey (66 items in 11 scales which measure characteristics of and conditions for PLC) has been adapted toﬁt a news-room context and is merged with items that measure aspects of explorative innovation culture (EIC). Conceptually speaking, ILC is the sum of PLC and EIC (Porcu 2017). The PLC survey and the EIC items have been used to compile the ILC questionnaire (75 items in 11 scales which measure characteristics of and conditions for ILC), using a 5-point Likert scale.

Designing the questionnaire has encompassed a process of delineating what aspects of the ILC-concept can be translated into survey scales. This process is summarised in the appendix, presenting the aspects of the ILC-concept, a comment on the translation altera-tions into scales, followed by (the number of) subject items as well as by the scale order chosen. Below the survey is presented with deﬁnitions of the scales. A distinction is made between characteristics of and conditions for ILC. The number of items used is mentioned between brackets:

Four scales measuring characteristics of ILC

1. Sharing knowledge learning from each other through active sharing (6) 2. Developing together learning from each other by creating something together (5) 3. Experimenting trying out new possibilities with insecure outcomes (9) 4. Exploratory attitude exploratory attitude towards improving (one’s) work (6)

Seven scales measuring conditions for ILC

5. Shared goals workers and management pursuing the same targets (7) 6. Autonomy agency to make decisions about (one’s own) work (7) 7. Training & development systematic attention for the development of people (6) 8. Internal communication open dialogue between members in the organisation (6)

(8)

9. Support from colleagues self-evident support from colleagues in a climate of trust (7) 10. Leadership editors in chief management’s focus on enabling people to develop (8) 11. Leadership middle-management middle-management’s focus on enabling people to develop (8)

To avoid a priming effect, the scale headings and their definitions have not been dis-played to respondents in the survey. The survey items are preceded by questions about age, gender, job characteristics and employment conditions. This is based on research showing that characteristics of people or groups of people have an impact on the work floor, and hence, can impact a newsroom’s ILC.

Age, for example, inﬂuences idea creativity in general (Binnewies, Ohly, and Niessen

2008). How people perceive creativity in the workplace can be related to holding a man-agement position or not (Kwaśniewska and Nęcka2004), to gender (Kwaśniewska and Nęcka 2004), as well as to the employment conditions one has (Montes, Ruiz Moreno,

and Molina Fernández 2004). With respect to newsrooms, gender has become a

growing research terrain as it influences salaries as well as job satisfaction (Lucht2015), sexual harassment (North2016) and newsroom culture (Elmore2007; Nilsson2010). Job insecurity is found to have a negative impact on changes in journalism practices (Ekdale et al. 2015), as well as on being able to practice journalism as a profession in the first place (Gollmitzer 2014). Also being part of a specific newsroom subgroup matters. For instance, people working with texts or people working with images often communicate in a very different manner which can lead to newsroom tensions (Lowrey

2002).

For the purpose of this article, and related to the aforementioned literature, we take into account the following eight characteristics: age (measured in years), gender (male or female), job type (choice for the main function from a list of possible newsroom jobs), contract type (choice of 4 options: permanent, temporary, freelancer or“other”), contract Y/ N (having a contract or not), how long title (how long one is working in the newsroom, measured in years), management Y/N (holding a management position or not) and text Y/N (working with text or not). For analytical reasons these are also referred to in a regrouped fashion: demographics (age, gender, how long title), newsroom positions ( job type, management Y/N, text Y/N) and employment conditions (contract type, contract Y/N).

(2) Validation of the survey instrument

The validation of the measurement instrument, the ILC-survey, has been tested in two newsrooms in the Netherlands. NRC Media and Trouw are both national quality newspa-pers with similar production processes, but with a different size and at different publishing companies. Both arefirmly positioned brands in the Dutch media landscape. We assume that, because of their market position, they are more likely to have resources to invest in innovation than smaller or regional newspapers. Additional motives for this selection of newspapers are availability and proximity.

The demographic composition of both newsroom populations as well as survey samples, showing age, gender and employment conditions, are summed up inTable 2. NRC Media has a relatively large newsroom: 228 persons have a direct (temporary or per-manent) contract with the newspaper and 93 persons work as freelancers or in some ﬂexible construction in the newsroom which adds up to a total of 321 individuals,

(9)

excluding interns. Trouw has a relatively small newsroom with 124 persons under direct contract and 47 freelancers or in someﬂexible construction, adding up to 171 persons, excluding interns.

Sampling Method & Distribution of the Survey

Everyone in the newsroom has had an equal chance to be part of the sample. Samples have been collected in April 2017 for NRC Media and in April 2018 for Trouw by sending out an invitation to all workers and management in the newsroom, including interns: 317 individuals at NRC Media and to 184 at Trouw. Reminders have been sent twice to all respondents in the subsequent weeks after the initial invitation. At NRC Media, not all 93 freelancers have been reached as not all of them use a personalised newsroom email account. To ensure confidentiality for respondents and to protect their privacy (Buchanan and Hvizak 2009), internet tracking cookies have been disabled when sending out the survey-link. Furthermore, data are stored on a server not accessible to anyone in these news organisations, and data have been studied by the researchers involved only. Confidentiality is very important for people working in the news industry, where job insecurity has become an issue (Deuze and Witschge 2018; Martinez-García and Navarro 2019). Hence, a confidentiality warrant has been explicitly communicated in the introduction of the survey. To minimise drop-out rates, the survey has been tested to ensure respondents could fill it out within approximately 10 min. The first author was present in the newsroom at the time of the survey to answer questions, when needed.

Internal Reliability of the Survey

The internal reliability of the scales of the survey instrument is calculated after testing with a reliability test in SPSS using Cronbach’s alpha (Bryman2008). An alpha of .70 and higher is commonly accepted as satisfactory, an alpha of .80 and above has been described as “fairly high” and values of .90 and above are viewed as “excellent” (Taber 2018, 1279). Results from the internal reliability test will be reported in the ﬁndings in the next paragraph.

Measurement Validity of the Survey

To test whether the instrument measures what it is expected to measure, we look for measurement validity (Bryman 2008), obtainable in various ways. In this study, we adopt content validity (Creswell 2014). Content validity is measured to examine “whether the scores from the instrument show that the test’s content relates to what the test is intended to measure” (Creswell 2014, 180). We argue content validity has been established prior to testing by building upon the theoretical underpinnings of ILC (Porcu2017), while adopting and enriching an already validated questionnaire (Schenke et al.2015). Furthermore, we have discussed the survey items with a panel consisting of ten experts: ﬁve journalists, two educational sciences scholars and three journalism studies scholars, each evaluating the survey from their own perspective with the aim to improve it. The journalists in the panel were asked to focus at readability as well as the

(10)

comprehensibility of the items in the survey and the scholars have given special attention to wording as well as the order of the scales. The panel has made fruitful comments throughout the development of the survey and has served as a check to avoid any poss-ible bias.

Generalisation of the Survey Samples

Generalisation of the results is conﬁned to the newsroom populations from which the samples are taken, if conditions for representativity are met (Bryman2008). To address these conditions, we consider response rates and use the demographics age and gender as well as employment conditions to determine the representativity of the samples after testing.

Findings & Discussion

As measurement validity has been determined prior to testing, in this paragraph we deter-mine if the survey instrument meets the conditions for internal reliability and generalis-ation to the newsroom populgeneralis-ations, also set out in the previous section. Response rates are addressed as well. Second, we show how demographics, newsroom positions and employment conditions of respondents can be related to fostering or hindering percep-tions of aspects of ILC, and how these relapercep-tions can diﬀer between newsrooms.

(1) Validation of the survey instrument

Internal Reliability of the Survey

Combining the dataset of both newsrooms we determine the internal reliability of the scales, via a reliability test in SPSS calculating Cronbach’s alpha. InTable 1, we see that the scales have alpha’s ranging between .72-.91, with an overall alpha of .831, which all indicate high internal reliability (Taber2018).

We observe inTable 1that seven scales, in particular, have a valid response of over 90%. This response diminishes with Experimenting, Training and development and the two Lea-dership scales, of which the latter two having been responded to least. We can only Table 1.Cronbach’s Alpha ILC per scale of both NRC Media and Trouw newsrooms (total n = 237).

ILC-scale Cronbach’s alpha Items Valid n Valid % 1. Sharing knowledge .814 6 208 90.4 2. Developing together .781 5 209 90.9 3. Experimenting .862 9 198 86.1 4. Exploratory attitude .724 6 214 93.0 5. Shared goals .815 7 214 93.0 6. Autonomy .793 7 215 93.5 7. Training & development .808 6 190 82.6 8. Internal communication .865 6 218 94.8 9. Support from colleagues .896 7 214 93.0 10. Leadership editors in chief .869 8 184 80.0 11. Leadership middle-management .909 8 183 79.6

(11)

Newsroom Under contract Freelance or“Flex” Totals

Gender Total Age Gender Total Agea Gender Total Agea

NRC Media F M <40 ≥40 F M <40 ≥40 F M <40 ≥40 N 95 133 228 78 150 39 54 93 134 187 321 % 41.7 58.3 100 34.2 65.8 41.9 58.1 100 41.7 58.3 100 n 44 64 108 44 64 12 15 27 56 79 135 % 40.7 59.3 100 40.7 59.3 44.4 55.6 100 41.5 58.5 100 Trouw F M <40 ≥40 F M <40 ≥40 F M <40 ≥ 40 N 58 66 124 32 92 28 19 47 26 21 86 85 171 58 113 % 46.8 53.2 100 25.8 74.2 59,6 40.4 100 55.3 44.7 50.3 49.7 100 33.9 66.1 n 39 45 84 24 60 6 5 11 4 7 45 50 95 28 67 % 46.4 53.6 100 28.6 71.4 54.5 45.5 100 36.4 63.6 47.4 52.6 100 29.5 70.5 a

Data on the age of freelancers at NRC Media have not been available. As a consequence, representativity for age of freelancers as well as for age totals cannot be determined, as has been done for other groups in this newsroom.

JOURNALISM

STUDIES

(12)

speculate on why this is the case. Interestingly, Leadership middle-management has turned out to have an alpha that reflects the highest scale reliability (Taber2018) but has been filled out least. It seems probable to assume that notwithstanding the explicit anonymity warrant given in the survey, evaluating one’s direct superior may be viewed as controver-sial, leading to a moderate“chilling effect” (Kempner2008) in responses.

Generalisation of the Survey Samples

Before expanding into a generalisation of the data to the respective newsroom popu-lations, we note that this study is concerned with people who physically work in the respective newsrooms, and have done so for more than a couple of months, in order to be able to respond the survey adequately. For this reason, all (former) interns who have answered the survey link (3 at NRC Media, 4 at Trouw) have been removed from the sample. Bouncing links also have been disregarded. This means that from the originally 317 links sent out at NRC Media, we consider 314. From the 184 links sent out at Trouw, we consider 171. In determining sample representativity we consider if the response rate is suﬃcient, and if gender, age and employment conditions in the samples are repre-sentative for the newsroom populations.

The response rate after three calls at NRC Media results in 42.9% (n = 135, from 314 links sent) and at Trouw in 55.6% in (n = 95, from 171 links sent). In general, response rates to online surveys are found to be signiﬁcantly lower than paper-based ones. According to Nulty (2008: 302), who compares online surveys to paper-based ones, online ones achieve on average “33% compared with 56% = 23% lower”. Based on this, we argue both responses are relatively high. Data of both samples, therefore, have a suﬃcient basis for generalisation.

Regarding gender, wefind at NRC Media that 41.5% of the sample of the total news-room is female, with 41.7% in the population (males sample: 58.5%, population: 58.3%). At Trouw wefind a total of 47.4% being female, against 50.3% in the population (males sample: 52.6%, population: 49.7%). Based on the relatively small differences between samples and populations, we consider representativity to be established for both news-room samples with regard to gender.

Considering age, we merge our data into two groups: people under 40 years of age (−40) and people over 40 years of age (+40). As data on the age of freelancers at NRC Media have not been available (see alsoTable 2), we cannot determine age representativ-ity for its entire newsroom. Instead, we observe the age of contracted people at NRC Media andﬁnd that 40.7% of the sample is −40, against 34.2% in the population (+40 sample: 59.3%, population: 65.8%). At Trouw we see 28.6% of −40 of the contracted people in the sample, compared to 25.8% in the population (+40 sample: 71.4%, population: 74.2%). Moreover, we can calculate the totals for the entire Trouw newsroom: 29.5% of the sample is−40, compared to 33.9% in the population (+40 sample: 70.5%, population: 66.1%). Based on the relatively small diﬀerences between samples and populations of, we argue representativity has been established for both samples with respect to age of the contracted. Representativity in age for the entire Trouw newsroom has been established as well.

Looking at employment conditions, weﬁnd that 80% in the NRC Media sample is under direct contract with the newsroom, against 71% in the population (ﬂex force sample: 20%,

(13)

population: 29%). At Trouw wefind 88.4% under direct contract in the sample, against 72.5% in the population (flex force sample: 11.5%, population: 27.5%). Both the samples show an under-representation offlex people (NRC Media: χ² = 4.5; df = 1; p < 0.05; Trouw: χ² = 12.1; df = 1; p = < 0.05).

We can only speculate on why the flexible workforce of these newsrooms appears slightly under-represented in this survey. It is probable that the very nature of their flexible ties with the newsroom means that freelancers don’t have the same amount of time as their contracted colleagues tofill out a survey. Based on qualitative data consisting of remarks made to the researcher (“I really have tried to fill it out, but I simply am not able to answer all of these questions as I don’t know the answers”), it is also possible that not all freelancers enjoy the same level of relatedness to the newsroom and, hence, are unfamiliar with some topics in the survey. This may also be discipline related, in terms of working with text or working with images or other disciplines. Another part of relatedness or invol-vement, in the sense of a feeling of belonging, can also motivate under-representation and may lie in the perception of freelancers that the survey was not meant for them, as several people remarked (“I automatically thought that as a freelancer I do not really belong to this newsroom, so I didn’t think it was for me, actually”). From these observations, we argue that more research is needed to fully understand how this varied group of flexible workers perceives aspects of ILC in the newsroom.

We conclude that response rates are suﬃciently high to allow for generalisation. In terms of demographics, gender is representative for both entire newsrooms, as well as is age with regard to the contracted part of the workforce. Age can also be generalised to the entire newsroom of Trouw.

(2) Measuring perceptions of ILC-aspects

When applying the ILC instrument to the two newsrooms wefind, in an initial obser-vation, that in both newsrooms nearly all means are scores of≥ 3.0. Hence, on a 5-point scale both newsrooms perceive a score which can be considered“sufficient” on all ILC-aspects. Moreover, calculating an overall mean, we find that they have similar scores: NRC Media = 3.3679 and Trouw = 3.3151. Based on these absolutefigures, we can conclude that ILC, overall, is perceived to be sufficient. However, delving deeper into the relative rankings of the different ILC-aspects, we find a more diverse picture.

Looking closely at the means and the statistical signiﬁcances per scale, as presented in

Tables 3and4, weﬁnd consistency in the rankings of perceived ILC-aspects. Both news-rooms have a top 5 in which 4 out of 5 aspects are perceived similarly (Shared Goals, Experi-menting, Support from Colleagues and Autonomy). Both have Shared Goals as number 1. This is also the case for the bottom of the rankings: 4 out of 5 are the same (Developing together, Leadership Editors in Chief, Exploratory attitude and Training & Development), with Leadership Editors in Chief for both in 10th position.

This means that both newsrooms perceive the same ILC-aspects to contribute most to an overall ILC– “fostering” – as well as experience the same ILC-aspects to contribute least to it– “hindering”. This is a crucial ﬁrst step in scrutinising which aspects are perceived to be up for improvement.

Thisfirst finding is remarkable with respect to our survey instrument. Both newsrooms differ substantially in history, culture, audience and size. The only thing they appear to

(14)

have in common is that they both are (national) newspapers. This means that, with respect to the perception of ILC-aspects, these apparently diﬀerent newsrooms in fact have similar experiences, which the survey measures consistently. Further research is needed to see if

this ﬁnding expands across other newspaper newsrooms or other types of media

newsrooms.

The second step to examine where there is room for improving a perceived ILC in the newsroom is to look if the ranked ILC-aspects relate to statistically significant respondent characteristics, or not. When this is the case, perceptions of ILC-aspects are systematically related to a demographic, a newsroom position or an employment condition, or a mix of these. When this is not the case, ILC-aspects are experienced independently of the news-room’s sociological makeup or people’s positions. In the latter situation, this means ILC-aspects have a broad support base in the newsroom, not influenced by specific respon-dent traits. In using the survey, it is the combination of these two steps, that can unlock the newsroom, as mentioned before.

Table 3.Mean scores scales ILC with statistically signiﬁcant characteristics for NRC Media (2017).

Scales ILC-aspects NRC (top down)↓ Means ILC-aspects SD Signiﬁcant characteristics ILC-aspects 1. Shared goals 3.6040 0.363 Job type**

Text* 2. Internal communication 3.5987 0.433 Contract**

Contract type* 3. Experimenting 3.5528 0.330

4. Support from colleagues 3.4778 0.557 Age*** Contract*** How long title*** Contract type ** Text** 5. Autonomy 3.4567 0.334 Age* 6. Sharing knowledge 3.4542 0.498 7. Leadership middle-management 3.3993 0.565 8. Developing together 3.2544 0.545

9. Exploratory attitude 3.1693 0.347 Contract* 10. Leadership editors in chief 3.1272 0.526

11. Training & development 2.9522 0.589 Note: .01 < P-value ≤ .05*; .001 < P-value ≤ .001**; P-value ≤ .001***.

Table 4.Mean scores scales with statistically signiﬁcant characteristics for Trouw (2018).

Scales ILC-aspects Trouw (top down)↓ Means ILC-aspects SD Signiﬁcant characteristics ILC-aspects 1. Shared goals 3.6831 0.339

2. Support from colleagues 3.5761 0.400

3. Autonomy 3.4838 0.310 Job type* 4. Sharing knowledge 3.3826 0.426

5. Experimenting 3.3704 0.369 Management* 6. Leadership middle-management 3.3467 0.502

7. Training & development 3.2556 0.354 8. Exploratory attitude 3.1207 0.250

9. Internal communication 3.1098 0.455 Contract** Contract type* How long title* 10. Leadership editors in chief 3.0868 0.334

11. Developing together 3.0500 0.397 Text* Management* Note: .01 < P-value ≤ .05*; .001 < P-value ≤ .001**; P-value ≤ .001***.

(15)

Wefind that, contrary to NRC Media, the bulk of Trouw’s ILC-aspects perceived to foster an overall ILC are broadly supported in the newsroom, hardly influenced by respondent characteristics. And, contrary to Trouw, wefind that the bulk of NRC Media’s ILC-aspects perceived to hinder an overall ILC are broadly supported in the newsroom, hence, hardly influenced by respondent characteristics.

With respect to our survey instrument, thesefindings show that ILC-aspects related to statistical significances offer survey-based “handles” to see where perceptions of ILC-aspects, and therefore a perceived overall ILC, can be improved. When there are no stat-istically significant relations to be found, other kinds of research can be used to find out more on the ILC-aspect in question. In these cases, we argue any ILC-aspect can be used as a topic in a qualitative interview, or as a conversation starter with– or between – newsroom management and workers.

Another way in which the two newsrooms are found to differ is the number of signifi-cances per perceived ILC-aspect, which appears to reflect the “density” of the ILC-aspect’s position dependency: the extent to which the aspect is influenced by respondent charac-teristics. Looking atTables 3and4, not the fact that both newsrooms differ in the absolute number of statistical significances is noteworthy per se. What is striking, however, is the difference in the “clustering” of statistical significances around an ILC-aspect. At NRC Media, with the exception of Experimenting, nearly all ILC-aspects are related to more than one characteristic. ILC-aspects with statistical significances are found to be multiple related at NRC Media, with the largest cluster, Support from Colleagues, being related tofive respondent characteristics: a mix of demographics, newsroom position and employment conditions. At Trouw the density in clustered significances is spread thinner: two ILC-aspects have more than one statistical significance, one of them (Internal Communication) having three respondent characteristics that influence perceptions of this ILC-aspect.

This difference in the density and the clustering of statistical significant respondent characteristics related to certain ILC-aspects gives rise to the question of what this means with respect to the measurement of ILC in both newsrooms. From the statistics, we can only deduct the fact that differences in the density of clustering are found. However, interpretations of what these differences actually can mean, are not so straight-forward. A large susceptibility to respondent characteristics can indicate the importance of status and hierarchy in a newsroom, or it can indicate newsroom dynamics in general. And a small susceptibility to respondent characteristics can suggest strong social coherence in a newsroom, but also a less hierarchical newsroom culture. Thisfinding can be relevant input for further, more qualitative research with these statistics as a starting point.

Learning more about the differences between the newsrooms we can calculate in what way they differ from each other in a significant way. Looking at the statistically significant differences between the means of NRC Media and Trouw we calculate the eta squared with SPSS. We sum up the results inTable 5, including its effect interpretation (Cohen1988):

From this calculation, we can deduct that the means of NRC Media and Trouw on these three ILC-aspects differ statistically in a significant way. The largest effect between these newsrooms is found with Internal communication, and a medium effect results from Train-ing & development. Differences in Experimenting are equally statistically significant, with a small effect. Looking back at our relative rankings, interestingly, we find that of these three calculated differences, Internal Communication is influenced by employment conditions in both newsrooms, in a similar way.

(16)

Limitations to the Research

Three limitations of this study should be noted. First, the statistical relations found can be explored further in order to understand what the exact relations consist of. However, as unravelling these in detail would distract from the very purpose of this article, which is to develop and validate a survey to study and improve creativity and innovation processes, we have had to refrain from delving into the specifics of the statistics. Second, the first author was present in the newsroom at the time of the distribution of the survey, to answer questions when needed. This presence may have influenced the relatively high response rate. Third, for this article only Dutch, national newspaper newsroom populations have been taken into account, which may reflect a specific professional culture. The ILC-survey instrument, however, can be used in other news organisations and in other countries as well.

Conclusion

In this article, we have developed and validated a survey instrument to measure innovative learning culture (ILC), a concept of Porcu (2017), in two Dutch national newspaper news-rooms, in order to learn more about creativity and innovation processes which are largely uncharted territory in newsroom studies. Knowing what is key to allow for“outside the box” innovation processes in the newsroom is fundamental for scholars to better under-stand newsroom innovation. At the same time, better comprehension of these innovation processes allows news organisations to develop their resilience, reinvent themselves and improve their chances for long-term survival (Küng2015).

The survey is used in a two-step approach. First, the ranking of the perceptions of the different ILC-aspects gives a crucial first indication of which aspects are to be tackled to improve an overall ILC. The question what fosters or hinders ILC can thus be answered. Second, if perceptions of an ILC-aspect appear to be influenced by respondent character-istics in a statistically significant way, these relations then can be used to examine possible improvements even more specifically. The combination of the two steps can actually func-tion as a key to“unlock” the newsroom’s capacity for innovation.

Wefind that newsrooms who differ much in history, culture, audience and size, have a surprisingly typical ranking of ILC-aspects that they perceive as fostering their overall ILC (Shared Goals, Experimenting, Support from Colleagues and Autonomy). Both have Shared Goals as their number 1 contributing ILC-aspect. They also have a typical ranking of those aspects they perceive as a hindrance to their overall ILC (Developing together, Leader-ship Editors in Chief, Exploratory attitude and Training & Development), LeaderLeader-ship Editors in Chief ranked in the second to last position in both newsrooms. In both newsrooms, the flexible workforce was rather unrepresented in the samples, and presumably for reasons having to do with the very precarious nature of their employment conditions. Further, Table 5.Statistically significant differences sample means NRC Media and Trouw.

Scale ILC NRC-Trouw P Df F Eta squared Interpretation Experimenting .044 1 4.092 .021 small Training & development .004 1 8.475 .044 medium Internal communication .000 1 26.398 .110 large

(17)

more qualitative research is needed to examine how theﬂexible workforce experience ILC in the newsrooms in which they work.

Furthermore, the found perceptions of aspects that hinder an overall ILC in both news-rooms appear to reﬂect the ﬁndings of several newsroom scholars (Ekdale et al.2015; Ryfe

2012; Sylvie and Gade2009; Tameling2015; Usher2014, amongst others). The value of this survey then lies in its holistic application, with a speciﬁc focus on “outside the box” ideas, addressing all members in the newsroom, and resulting in an overview of where fostering or hindrance of ILC is experienced. This overview is crucial in understanding how a news-room’s capacity for innovation can be improved.

The differences between these surveyed newsrooms can partly be explained by the influence of respondent characteristics on the perceptions of ILC-aspects. Furthermore, findings partly appear to be uniquely related to the respective newsroom culture. It is interesting that these cultural differences are reflected in the survey results. For the interpretations of these differences, however, in-depth qualitative research is needed.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID

Ornella Porcu http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6384-6095 Liesbeth Hermans http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4986-9156 Marcel Broersma http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7342-3472

References

Alvesson, M., and S. Sveningsson. 2008. “Organizational Culture and Change.” In Changing Organizational Culture: Cultural Change Work in Progress, edited by M. Alvesson, and S. Sveningsson, 35–50. Oxon: Routledge.

Amabile, T.1997.“Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What You Love and Loving What You Do.” California Management Review 40 (I): 39–58.

Amabile, T., R. Conti, H. Coon, J. Lazenby, and M. Herron.1996.“Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity.” The Academy of Management Journal 39: 1145–1184.

Binnewies, C., S. Ohly, and C. Niessen.2008.“Age and Creativity at Work: The Interplay Between Job Resources, Age and Idea Creativity.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 23 (4): 438–457.

Boczkowski, PJ. 2004.“The Processes of Adopting Multimedia and Interactivity in Three Online Nnewsrooms.” Journal of Communication 54 (2): 197–213.

Borger, M.2016.“Participatory Journalism; Rethinking Journalism in the Digital Age?” PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit.

Boyles, J. L.2016.“The Isolation of Innovation.” Digital Journalism 4 (2): 229–246.

Brimhall, K. C., and M. E. More Barak.2018.“The Critical Role of Workplace Inclusion in Fostering Innovation, Job Satisfaction, and Quality of Care in a Diverse Human Service Organization.” Human Service Organizations: Management Leadership and Governance 42 (5): 474–492.

Bryman, A.2008. Social Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buchanan, E. A., and E. E. Hvizak.2009.“Online Survey Tools: Ethical and Methodological Concerns of Human Research Ethics Committees.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal 4 (2): 37–48.

Buijs, K.2014. Regiojournalistiek in spagaat: De kwaliteit van het redactieproces in de regionale journal-istiek; een case-studie. Den Haag: Boom Lemma.

(18)

Cameron, K. S., and R. E. Quinn.2011. Onderzoeken en veranderen van organisatiecultuur. Amsterdam: Boom Uitgevers Amsterdam.

Chadha, K., and R. Wells.2016.“Journalistic Responses to Technological Innovation in Newsrooms.” Digital Journalism 4 (8): 1020–1035.

Cohen, J.1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coleman, R., and J. Colbert.2004.“Inﬂuencing Creativity in Newsrooms: Works Pace Matters to Newspaper and Web Designers.” Visual Communication Quarterly 11 (3-4): 18–24.

Cottle, S., and M. Ashton.1999.“From BBC Newsroom to BBC Newscentre: On Changing Technology and Journalist Practices.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies 5 (3): 22–43.

Creswell, J. W. 2014. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Deuze, M., and T. Witschge.2018.“Beyond Journalism: Theorizing the Transformation of Journalism.” Journalism 19 (2): 165–181.

Ekdale, S., M. Tully, S. Harmsen, and J. B. Singer.2015.“Newswork Within a Culture of Job Insecurity: Producing News Amidst Organizational and Industry Uncertainty.” Journalism Practice 9 (3): 383– 398.

Elmore, C. 2007. “Recollections in Hindsight from Women Who Left: The Gendered Newsroom Culture.” Women and Language 30 (2): 18–17.

Evans, S. K.2016.“Making Sense of Innovation: Process, Product, and Storytelling Innovation in Public Service Broadcasting Organizations.” Journalism Studies.doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1154446. Faustino, P., and E. Noam.2019.“Media Industries’ Management Characteristics and Challenges in a

Converging Digital World.” In Making Media. Production, Practices, and Professions, edited by M. Deuze and M. Prenger, 147–159. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Fortunati, L., and J. O’Sullivan.2019.“Situating the Social Sustainability of Print Media in a World of Digital Alternatives.” Telematics and Informatics 37: 137–145.

Gollmitzer, M.2014.“Precariously Employed Watchdogs?” Journalism Practice 8 (6): 826–841. Griswold, W.2008. Cultures and Societies in a Changing World. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press. Heckman, M., and J. Wihbey.2019.“The Local-Mobile Paradox: Missed Innovation Opportunities at

Local Newspapers.” Newspaper Research Journal.doi:10.1177/0739532919835610.

Joo, B. K. 2010. “Organizational Commitment for Knowledge Workers: The Role of Perceived Organizational Learning Culture, Leader-Member Exchange Quality, and Turnover Intention.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 20 (1): 69–85.

Kempner, J., and P. Singer.2008.“The Chilling Eﬀect: How Do Researchers React to Controversy?” PLoS Medicine 5 (11): e222.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050222.

Küng, L.2008. Strategic Management in the Media. From Theory to Practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Küng, L.2015. Innovators in Digital News. New York: I.B. Tauris.

Küng, L.2016.“Why Is Media Management Research so Diﬃcult – And What Can Scholars Do to Overcome the Field’s Intrinsic Challenges?” Journal of Media Business Studies 13 (4): 276–282. Kwaśniewska, J., and E. Nęcka.2004.“Perception of the Climate for Creativity in the Workplace: The

Role of the Level in the Organization and Gender.” Creativity and Innovation Management 13 (3): 187–196.

Lowe, G. F., and C. Brown, eds.2016. Managing Media Firms and Industries. What’s So Special About Media Management. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing.

Lowrey, W.2002.“Word People vs Picture People: Normative Diﬀerences and Strategies for Control Over Work Among Newsroom Subgroups.” Mass Communication & Society 5 (4): 411–432. Lowrey, W.2011.“Institutionalism, News Organizations and Innovation.” Journalism Studies 12 (1):

64–79.

Lucht, T. 2015. “High on Passion, Low on Pay: Women’s Job Satisfaction at Iowa Newspapers.” Newspaper Research Journal 36 (4): 426–440.

March, J. G.1991.“Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.” Organization Science 2 (1): 71–87.

(19)

Martinez-García, L., and C. Navarro. 2019. “Characterisation of Spanish Online Journalists: Consolidation of a Profession in a Context of Economic Crisis.” Revista Latina de Comunicación Social 74: 1014–1030.

McLean, L. D.2005.“Organizational Culture’s Inﬂuence on Creativity and Innovation: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Human Resource Development.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 7 (2): 226–246.

Montes, FJL, Ruiz Moreno A, and Molina Fernández LM.2004.“Assessing the Organizational Climate and Contractual Relationship for Perceptions of Support for Innovation.” International Journal of Manpower 25 (2): 167–180.

Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., and G. Calderon-Hernández.2018.“Model of Culture for Innovation.”doi:10. 5772/intechopen.81002

Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., D. Jiménez-Jiménez, and R. Sanz-Valle.2011.“Innovation or Imitation? The Role of Organizational Culture.” Management Decision 49 (1): 55–72.

Ness, I. J., and H. Riese. 2015. “Openness, Curiosity and Respect: Underlying Conditions for Developing Innovative Knowledge and Ideas Between Disciplines.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 6: 29–39.

Nilsson, N. L.2010.““Thinkings” and “Doings” of Gender.” Journalism Practice 4 (1): 1–16.

North, L.2016.“Damaging and Daunting: Female Journalists’ Experiences and Sexual Harassment in the Newsroom.” Feminist Media Studies 16 (3): 495–510.

Nulty, D. D. 2008.“The Adequacy of Response Rates to Online and Paper Surveys: What can be Done?” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (3): 301–314.

Nygren, G.2014.“Multiskilling in the Newsroom: De-Skilling or Re-Skilling of Journalistic Work.” The Journal of Media Innovations 1 (2): 75–96.

Nylund, M. 2013.“Towards Creativity Management: Idea Generation and Newsroom Meetings.” International Journal on Media Management 15 (4): 197–210.

Oberon, Kohnstamm Instituut and Iclon.2014. Leren met en van elkaar. Onderzoek naar de professio-nele leercultuur in het voortgezet onderwijs. Iclon.

O’Reilly, C. A., and M. L. Tushman.2004.“The Ambidextrous Organization.” Harvard Business Review 82 (4): 74–83.

O’Reilly, C. A., and M. L. Tushman.2013.“Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future.” The Academy of Management Perspectives 27 (4): 324–338.

Pavlik, J. V.2013.“Innovation and the Future of Journalism.” Digital Journalism 1 (2): 181–193. Picard, R. G., and G. F. Lowe.2016.“Questioning Media Management Scholarship: Four Parables

About How to Better Develop the Field.” Journal of Media Business Studies 13 (2): 61–72. Porcu, O.2017.“Exploring Innovative Learning Culture in the Newsroom.” Journalism,doi:10.1177/

1464884917724596.

Reich, Z. 2013. “The Impact of Technology on News Reporting: A Longitudinal Perspective.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 90 (3): 417–434.

Ryfe, D. M.2012. Can Journalism Survive: An Inside Look at American Newsrooms. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Schenke, W. 2015. "Connecting Practice-Based Research and School Development. Cross-pro-fessional Collaboration in Secondary Education." PhD thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Schenke W, Sligte HW, Admiraal W, Buisman M, Emmelot YW, Meirink J and Smit B (2015) Scan School

als Professionele Leergemeenschap. Amsterdam: Kohnstamm Instituut.

Seville, E. W.2017. Resilient Organizations: How to Survive, Thrive and Create Opportunities Through Crisis and Change. London: Kogan Page.

Slot, M.2018.“About Introvert Incumbents and Extravert Start-Ups: An Exploration of the Dialectics of Collaborative Innovation in the Dutch Journalism Field.” Journalism, doi:10.1177/ 1464884918794303.

Storsul, T., and A. H. Krumsvik. 2013. “What is Media Innovation?” In Media Innovation, a Multidisciplinary Study of Change, edited by T. Storsul, and A. H. Krumsvik, 13–27. Göteborg: Nordicom.

Swart, J.2018. "Haven’t you heard? Connecting through news and journalism in everyday life." PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

(20)

Sylvie, G., and P. Gade.2009.“Changes in News Work: Implications for Newsroom Managers.” Journal of Media Business Studies 6 (1): 113–148.

Sylvie, G., and A. Schmitz Weiss. 2012. “Putting the Management Into Innovation & Media Management Studies: A Meta-Analysis.” The International Journal on Media Management 14: 183–206.

Taber, K. S. 2018. “The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments and Science Education.” Research in Science Education 48: 1273–1296.

Tameling, K.2015. En wat doen we online? Crossmediale dilemma’s op de Nederlandse nieuwsredactie. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen / Amsterdam: Boom Lemma Uitgevers.

Usher, N.2014. Making News at The New York Times. Ann Arbor, MI: New Media World.

Wallace, S.2013.“The Complexities of Convergence Multiskilled Journalists Working in BBC Regional Multimedia Newsrooms.” International Communication Gazette 75 (1): 99–117.

Wallace, R. A., and A. Wolf.2006. Contemporary Sociological Theory: Expanding the Classical Tradition. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Westlund, O., and S. C. Lewis.2014.“Agents of Media Innovations: Actors, Actants, and Audiences.” Journal of Media Innovations 1 (2): 10–35.

Yolles, M.2009.“Competitive Advantage and its Conceptual Development An Exploration.” Business Information Review 26 (2): 93–111.

Appendix

From ILC as a concept (Porcu2017) to ILC as a survey modelled after a survey for teachers developed by Oberon et al., (2014) and Schenke et al. (2015).

Characteristics of ILC Alterations

Scales in ILC survey (number of items,

items total = 75)

Item subjects (j = journalism; s = systematic; fb = feedback; stim = stimulation; ex = experimental; pro = project; inf = inﬂuence on; res = responsibility; str = strategy)

Scale order 1. Learning from

each other

Distinguished in different scales with slightly different but more concrete significance

Sharing knowledge (6)Developing together (5)

training, routines, quality, juniors/ seniors, vision journalism, developmentsnew routines, j-storytelling, online chances, input readers, problem solving

1.2.

2. (Re)search/ investigation

No alterations in signiﬁcance, only in name

Exploratory attitude (6)

j-developments, improvements, stim new idea, s-reﬂection, fb readers, change

4.

3. Experimental No alterations in signiﬁcance, slightly in name

Experimenting (9) creativity, appreciation/execution ideas of/from colleagues/ management, participation projects, s-stim to take part in ex-pro, appreciation radical ideas

3.

4. Autonomous No alterations in signiﬁcance, slightly in name

Autonomy (7) inf-developing,

(inf-)professionalisation, inf-strategy, res-quality, expertise, free

6.

5. Creative Integrated into scale Experimenting

see also Experimenting 6. Radical Integrated into scale

Experimenting

see also Experimenting 7. Flexible Integrated into scale

Exploratory attitude

see also Exploratory attitude Conditions for ILC

1. Leadership Distinguished in diﬀerent scales, same items

Leadership editors in chief (8)

Leadership middle-management (8)

oﬀer time: to share, to experiment with new ideas, to exchange fb; stim plans development, actively involves newsroom in strategy

10. 11.

(21)

Continued.

Characteristics of ILC Alterations

Scales in ILC survey (number of items,

items total = 75)

Item subjects (j = journalism; s = systematic; fb = feedback; stim = stimulation; ex = experimental; pro = project; inf = inﬂuence on; res = responsibility; str = strategy)

Scale order title, stim exploratory attitude,

stim entrepreneurial attitude, take development people seriously

2. Communication No alterations in signiﬁcance, slightly in name

Internal

communication (6)

verbally/digitally developments, from str to practice, sharing knowledge newsroom /key developments in meetings, conversation on quality management and workers

8.

3. Mutual trust Altered into new scale Support from colleagues

Support from colleagues (7)

workers/management: respect, appreciation efforts, counting on each other in tough situations, openness towards one another, openness in giving each other fb, call each other to account, offering help to each other without being askedfirst

9.

4 Supporting culture

Integrated into scale Support from colleagues